Caseload and Workload Management - Child Welfare Information ...

Caseload 

and Workload 

Management 

Large caseloads and excessive workloads in many jurisdictions 

make it difficult for child welfare workers to serve families 

effectively. The average caseload for child welfare workers 

often exceeds recommended levels, sometimes by double 

or more (Alliance for Children and Families, American Public 

Human Services Association [APHSA], & Child Welfare League 

of America [CWLA], 2001). The complexity of cases requiring 

intensive intervention, as well as administrative requirements, 

further adds to a caseworker’s workload. Manageable caseloads 

and workloads can make a real difference in a worker’s ability to 

spend adequate time with children and families, improve staff 

retention, and ultimately have a positive impact on outcomes for 

children and families. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Administration for Children and Families 

Administration on Children, Youth and Families 

Children’s Bureau 

What’s Inside: 

sTATe MANAGers serIes 

Issue brIef 

April 2010 

• Definitions 

• Benefits of Caseload and 

Workload Management 

• Catalysts and Motivating 

Factors 

• Workload Studies and Other 

Tools 

• Strategies for Caseload and 


• State and Local Examples 

of Caseload and Workload 

Strategies 

• Related Resources 

• References 

Child Welfare Information Gateway 

Children’s Bureau/ACYF 

1250 Maryland Avenue, SW 

Eighth Floor 

Washington, DC 20024 

800.394.3366 

Email: info@childwelfare.gov 

www.childwelfare.gov

Caseload and Workload Management www.childwelfare.gov 

Reducing and managing caseloads and 

workloads are not simple tasks for child 

welfare administrators. Agencies face a 

number of challenges, including negotiating 

budget crises and hiring freezes, addressing 

worker turnover, finding qualified applicants 

for open positions, implementing timeintensive 

best practices, and managing 

multiple reforms simultaneously (Day & 

Peterson, 2008). Even the basic determination 

of what caseloads and workloads currently are 

and what they should be can be thorny. 

Nevertheless, States are addressing these 

challenges and successfully implementing a 

variety of strategies to make caseloads and 

workloads more manageable. Approaches 

range from adding and retaining staff 

to improving worker effectiveness to 

implementing system improvements. 

In an effort to build the workload knowledge 

base and share lessons learned across States, 

this information brief provides State child 

welfare managers with an overview of: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The benefits of caseload and workload 

management 

Catalysts and motivating factors 

Workload studies and other tools 

Strategies for caseload and workload 

management 

State and local examples of caseload and 

workload strategies 

Related resources 

defInItIons 

• Caseload: The number of cases 

(children or families) assigned to an 

individual worker in a given time period. 

Caseload reflects a ratio of cases (or 

clients) to staff members and may be 

measured for an individual worker, all 

workers assigned to a specific type of 

case, or all workers in a specified area 

(e.g., agency or region). 

• Workload: The amount of work 

required to successfully manage 

assigned cases and bring them to 

resolution. Workload reflects the 

average time it takes a worker to (1) do 

the work required for each assigned 

case; and (2) complete other noncasework 

responsibilities. 

benefits of Caseload and 


Caseload and workload management 

often appear as key ingredients in a State’s 

comprehensive strategy to produce better 

outcomes for children and families. The 

benefits of reasonable caseloads and 

manageable workloads relate to: 

• Retaining staff and reducing turnover. 

Heavy caseloads and workloads have 

been cited repeatedly as key reasons that 

workers leave the child welfare workforce 

(Zlotnik, DePanfilis, Daining, & Lane, 2005; 

U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO], 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case_work_management/ 

2

Caseload and Workload Management 

2003; Gonzalez, Faller, Ortega, & Tropman, 

2009; Ellett, A. J., Ellet, C. D., & Rugutt, 

2003; Social Work Education Consortium, 

2002). 

• delivering quality services. High staff 

turnover resulting from heavy caseloads can 

have a negative impact on the timeliness, 

continuity, and quality of services provided 

by an agency (National Council on Crime 

and Delinquency, 2006; Strolin, McCarthy, & 

Caringi, 2007; Flower, McDonald, & Sumski, 

2005; GAO, 2003). 

• engaging families and building 

relationships. Essential child welfare 

processes—including family engagement, 

relationship building, assessment, and 

permanency planning—are time intensive 

and require frequent worker-client contact. 

Heavy workloads and caseloads reduce 

the amount of time available for these 

processes. 

• Positive outcomes for children and 

families. Workloads and caseloads have 

been linked to performance on Federal 

Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) 

and achievement of safety and permanency 

outcomes (Children’s Bureau, 2006; GAO, 

2003). 

Catalysts and Motivating 

factors 

Some States set out specifically to reduce 

caseloads and workloads; others have 

reforms imposed on them; and still others 

arrive at caseload and workload reduction 

as an unintended effect of other initiatives. 

The impetus for caseload and workload 

reduction efforts typically emerges from 

one or more of the following catalysts: 



www.childwelfare.gov 

• CfsRs. After the first round of CFSRs, about 

half the States’ Program Improvement Plans 

(PIPs) noted the need for improvements in 

workloads or caseloads (Children’s Defense 

Fund and Children’s Rights, 2006). States 

continue to address workloads/caseloads 

and related issues (e.g., recruitment, 

retention, training, supervision, and systems 

reform) in the second round PIPs as a 

means to improve CFSR outcomes and to 

achieve compliance with Federal standards. 

• Legislation. Several State legislatures have 

mandated State and local jurisdictions to 

assess workload issues, meet identified 

standards, implement specific strategies 

such as hiring additional staff, and report 

on progress. For examples of existing 

legislation, see Delaware, Florida, Indiana, 

and Texas . 

• Litigation and consent decrees. Classaction 

litigation across the country— 

frequently resulting from high-profile 

fatalities—has brought attention to child 

welfare system reform and generated 

workforce improvements (Farber & Munson, 

2007). Provisions in settlement agreements 

and consent decrees often require 

jurisdictions (for example, Baltimore, 

MD; District of Columbia; Illinois; and 

Milwaukee, WI) to meet specific caseload 

standards. 

• staffing needs. In a nationwide survey, 

State administrators identified reducing 

caseloads, workloads, and supervisory 

ratios as the most important action for child 

welfare agencies to take to retain qualified 

frontline staff (APHSA, 2005). 

3


• standards and accreditation. When 

developing caseload management 

strategies, some States and localities take 

into consideration the caseload standards 

and guidance recommended by CWLA; 

others strive to meet the Council on 

Accreditation (COA) standards in order 

to achieve accreditation. States have 

had varying success in achieving and 

maintaining these standards. 

• systems reform. Currently, some States 

are engaged in developing new practice 

models and implementing systemwide 

reform efforts, such as differential response, 

family engagement, and system of care 

initiatives. While caseload/workload 

reduction may not be a stated goal of these 

reform efforts, it sometimes is a necessary 

component or a resultant outcome. 

• Union negotiations. Unions representing 

child welfare workers have played an 

important role in negotiating improved 

caseload ratios. 

The process of caseload and workload 

management often begins with workload 

and time studies. These studies analyze how 

work is being done and how time is spent, 

and frequently compare the actual data with 

estimations of what is needed to deliver 

quality services and best practices. Workload 

studies can provide a foundation for: 

• 

Workload studies 

and Other Tools 

Determining how many workers are needed 

to handle cases effectively in different 



program areas and then setting caseload 

standards and staff allocations accordingly 

• Understanding how much time workers 

spend on providing services to clients, 

documenting their work, completing other 

administrative tasks, traveling, etc., and 

then identifying more efficient processes 

and practices 

• Exploring how various case characteristics 

(such as risk levels, number of siblings, 

immigrant status) can influence workload 

and assessing workflow implications 

(Tooman & Fluke, 2002) 

• Managing work expectations, which can 

lead to higher work satisfaction and boost 

staff morale (Edwards & Reynolds, 2008) 

• Justifying resource allocations and building 

stakeholder support for caseload/workload 

management strategies 

Often working with expert consultants, 

many States and counties across the country 

have conducted workload studies using 

various methodologies to address their 

workforce issues. Several States are now 

moving from point-in-time studies to periodic 

and automated tracking of workloads and 

caseloads to inform ongoing workforce 

decisions. Analytic tools, like those used in 

Minnesota and New Jersey, serve as further 

supports to routinely assess caseload data and 

their implications for staffing and workflow 

management. 

In other States and counties, however, it has 

not been feasible for cost, time, or other 

reasons to conduct workload studies. These 

jurisdictions can still improve their workforce 

management by learning from other workload 

study findings to approximate their staffing 

4


and workforce needs (Wagner, Johnson, & 

Healy, 2008). 

strategies for Caseload and 


Strategies to reduce caseloads and 

workloads include targeted efforts as well 

as broader initiatives in three categories: 

staffing, improving worker effectiveness, and 

implementing program and practice changes. 

staffing 

Manageable caseloads and workloads are 

functions in large part of the number of 

qualified staff available to handle cases. 

Caseload/workload strategies related to 

staffing reflect: 

• Recruitment of new staff. Agencies are 

implementing a range of activities to attract 

qualified applicants, including adopting 

new outreach strategies, revising hiring 

practices, offering higher salaries, and 

providing stipends for bilingual staff or for 

masters in social work. While adding staff 

may be the most obvious approach to 

reducing caseloads and workloads, it often 

is constrained by available funding and 

the lack of qualified applicants for open 

positions. Several States that have added 

large numbers of new positions (e.g., 

Delaware, Indiana, and New Jersey) have 

been supported by legislation or consent 

decrees. 




• Retention of existing staff. To reduce 

turnover—which is both a consequence 

and a cause of high workloads—agencies 

are introducing employee recognition and 

reward programs, providing mentoring 

initiatives, enhancing supervision and 

support, enabling job sharing and flex time, 

and offering opportunities for professional 

development and advanced education. 

In addition, retention efforts include 

practices intended to improve the match 

between the worker and the job through 

competency-based hiring (Bernotavicz, 

2008), internships, and use of videos 

that provide recruits with a more realistic 

view of child welfare work (for examples, 

see Realistic Job Preview Videos from 

Colorado, Maine, and North Carolina. Many 

States also are conducting exit interviews 

to determine why staff leave and using 

findings to inform new retention initiatives 

(Robison, 2006). 

• Reallocation of staff. In some instances, 

agencies (e.g., in Maryland and Idaho) 

have been reallocating staff to more 

efficiently address workloads and caseload 

distribution. In making reallocation and case 

assignment decisions, States may consider 

not only the number of cases but also the 

type of case and level of effort required. 

• specialized and support staff. Some 

States develop specialized staff units or 

positions to allocate workloads more 

efficiently; others assign support staff to 

help lessen caseworker paperwork and 

administrative tasks. 

5


For more research-based and practical 

“how-to” information on recruitment and 

retention strategies used in the field, see: 

• Strategies Matrix Approach to 

Recruitment and Retention Techniques 

(SMARRT Manual), produced by the 

Western Regional Recruitment and 

Retention Project 

• Training Series: Staff Retention in Child 

and Family Services developed by 

Michigan State University School of 

Social Work 

• Workforce Tools featured on the Child 

Welfare Information Gateway website 

Improving Worker effectiveness 

Agencies also address workload management 

through practices that aim to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of workers, so that 

once in place, staff can handle more cases or 

work in less time. Strategies include: 

• training and professional development. 

Well-trained staff are able to complete 

tasks accurately and in a timely manner. In 

addition, studies suggest that educational 

programs provide workers with both 

competencies and increased commitment 

to their jobs, which are associated with 

retention (Zlotnik et al., 2005). Agencies 

are delivering a variety of training initiatives 

to build competencies and align skills with 

new practice models. Some States have 

formed university-agency partnerships 



that provide training and, in some cases, 

funding for child welfare staff to pursue 

graduate social work degrees (e.g., New 

York’s Social Work Education Consortium). 

• supervision. Good supervision helps 

workers gain knowledge and build the 

skills needed to conduct their work more 

effectively and efficiently. In addition, 

research points to supportive supervision 

as a critical factor in reducing turnover 

(Zlotnik et al., 2005; Juby & Scannapieco, 

2007; GAO, 2003.) Agencies are working 

to reduce staff/supervisor ratios, build 

supervisor skills, and improve the 

supervisor-caseworker relationship through 

supervisory training, coaching initiatives, 

mentoring opportunities, and feedback 

mechanisms. 

• design teams. Bringing together staff 

of every level from frontline workers and 

supervisors up through managers and 

administrators, design teams in New 

York State and elsewhere are used first to 

identify workforce issues and their causes 

and then to develop and implement 

workable solutions. 

• tools and technology. Agencies are using 

current technologies and mobile devices 

to help workers document casework more 

efficiently, access information that supports 

decision-making, and make use of waiting 

time. For example, workers in parts of 

Texas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma take tablet 

PCs into the field to aid in streamlined 

documentation; workers in Vermont carry 

cell phones that not only offer telephone 

service but also email, scheduling, and 

modem functions; and workers in Iowa are 

using SACWIS as a case management tool 

and resource for decision-making. 

6


• Quality assurance. States and localities 

are implementing case review processes 

and quality assurance efforts to ensure 

effectiveness. 

Implementing Program and 

Practice Changes 

While some States focus on enlarging or 

enhancing the workforce, others approach 

caseload/workload management by reducing 

the “work,” i.e., decreasing the number of 

children and families who enter, reenter, or 

remain in the system. 

• Prevention and early intervention. 

Agencies seek to reduce the number of 

cases entering the child welfare system 

through in-home and other prevention 

services as well as differential/alternative 

response initiatives. Arizona and Idaho are 

among the States that recognize prevention 

and early intervention as part of their 

workload/caseload management strategies. 

• Permanency initiatives. Other States 

and jurisdictions—for example, Suffolk 

County, New York (Levy Credits Foster 

Care, 2009)—focus on the backend of the 

system, employing initiatives related to 

kinship care, adoption, and other avenues 

to permanency as a means to reduce 

caseloads. 

• other systems reforms. While systemwide 

reforms such as new practice models 

and systems of care may not always 

be identified as caseload/workload 

management, they can, nevertheless, yield 

significant results in reducing caseloads and 

workloads. Some argue that such efforts 

will not be effective without attention to 

caseload and workload (Children’s Bureau, 

n.d., slide 15). 




State and local agencies throughout the 

country are using the strategies above to 

reduce caseloads and manage workloads. 

Following are selected examples. 1 While the 

examples below highlight certain aspects of 

a State’s caseload/workload strategy, they 

may not provide the complete picture of 

that State’s multifaceted initiative. Also, it 

is important to note that current economic 

conditions and budget crises are affecting 

many agencies’ abilities to implement and 

sustain caseload and workload reduction. 

The following profiles represent point-in-time 

snapshots. As agencies respond to budget 

constraints and other environmental factors, 

activities and results may change. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

state and Local examples 

of Caseload and Workload 

strategies 

New Jersey: Infrastructure changes and 

case practice model 

Minnesota: Workload analytic tool 

Larimer County, CO: Workload reports and 

informed decision-making 

Indiana: Staff expansion, enrichment, and 

practice reform 

Delaware: Designated funding, overhiring 

pool, and staff retention 

Arizona: Staffing, staff development, and 

prevention 

1 The examples are presented for information purposes 

only; inclusion does not indicate an endorsement by the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau, 

or Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

7


New Jersey: Infrastructure Changes 

and Case Practice Model 

Caseload management has played a central 

role in New Jersey’s recent reform efforts with 

an emphasis on infrastructure improvements. 

In response to a modified settlement 

agreement (MSA), Charlie and Nadine H. 

v. Corzine, the Department of Children and 

Families (DCF) was created as a standalone, 

cabinet-level department in 2006. DCF hired 

hundreds of new workers, implemented more 

comprehensive and timely training for frontline 

staff and supervisors, and provided critical 

supports. 

To serve children and families more effectively, 

DCF introduced a case practice model. The 

model articulates the department’s guiding 

values, integrates best practices, and identifies 

family engagement as a core strategy. DCF 

is implementing the case practice model 

incrementally through extensive instruction, 

coaching, and mentoring to selected 

immersion sites, as well as broader training 

statewide. Caseload management makes 

possible the time caseworkers need to apply 

the case practice model. In turn, using the 

case practice model to serve children and 

families more purposefully supports caseload 

management. 

Enhanced data and management tools 

represent another element in New Jersey’s 

caseload management efforts. Safe Measures, 

an analytic tool, pulls data from SACWIS 

and the NJ Spirit data system and provides 

managers, supervisors, and workers with 

access to a range of information including 

current caseload levels, completion of key 

case events, family contacts, and compliance 

with Federal requirements. Managers have 

used Safe Measures to track progress against 

caseload standards set forth in the MSA, direct 

new staff and supports to identified areas of 

need, and distribute cases rationally across 

staff (DCF, 2007). 

With a foundation of infrastructure, workforce, 

and service improvements in place, New 

Jersey entered the second phase of its 

massive reform effort in January 2009. 

Attention has shifted to sustainability, further 

institutionalizing the case practice model, 

developing quality review processes, and 

maintaining progress toward meeting 

specified outcome benchmarks and 

performance indicators. 

Results: New Jersey has made substantial 

progress in achieving more manageable 

caseloads for caseworkers. In March 2006, 

more than 100 caseworkers in New Jersey 

had caseloads of more than 30 families; as 

of June 2009, no caseworkers had more than 

30 families (DCF, 2009). According to a courtordered 

independent monitor, in 2009 DCF 

achieved or exceeded the office average 

caseload standards set for intake workers (no 

more than 12 open cases and 8 new referrals 

per month), permanency workers (no more 

than 15 families and 10 children in out-ofhome 

care at one time), and adoption workers 

(no more than 12 children). Individual caseload 

standards were met by 90 percent of all 

case-carrying staff. In addition, DCF showed 

significant improvements in child safety and 

placement outcomes (Center for the Study of 

Social Policy [CSSP], 2009). 

The independent monitor credited New 

Jersey’s caseload reduction with “beginning 

to make a difference in the quality of practice 

across the State, producing greater stability in 

the workforce, and creating an environment 

that provides staff the opportunity to follow 



8


the principles articulated in the case practice 

model.” (CSSP, 2008). 

For more information, contact Kathleen Niedt, 

DCF, 609.292.9062, kathleen.niedt@dcf.state. 

nj.us 

Minnesota: Workload Analytic Tool 

The Minnesota Department of Human Services 

(MDHS) has developed an innovative and 

easy-to-use analytic tool to help counties 

manage their child welfare workloads. The 

tool, constructed using MS Excel, allows 

county directors, managers, and supervisors 

to enter caseload and workforce data and 

project staff needs. By using the tool over 

time, counties in this county-administered 

child welfare system can assess whether they 

are under- or over-staffed to handle cases 

properly and also whether the distribution of 

staff across case type is appropriate (Hornby 

Zeller Associates, Inc., 2009a). 

Critical data inputs for the analytic tool were 

generated from a statewide child welfare 

workload study conducted in 2009 through a 

contract with Hornby Zeller Associates. The 

study was not intended to calculate a caseload 

standard, but rather to develop a better 

understanding of the time required for staff 

to conduct children and family workgroups 

(Minnesota’s term for cases). The workload 

study collected data to measure two types of 

time: 

staff time available for casework. 

• Through 

a random moment survey reflecting 4,000 

random moments, staff in 40 counties were 

asked to report what they were working 

on. Survey results found that workers 

spent approximately two-thirds of their 

time on case-specific work (Hornby Zeller 

Associates, 2009b). 




• Average time spent on cases. Under a 

case time study, workers recorded the 

time spent on various tasks for a sample 

of 2,155 cases. This information was 

used to calculate how much time was 

needed to handle different types of cases 

in accordance with State and Federal 

requirements. 

Integrating the findings from both sources into 

the analytic tool, Minnesota has developed 

an ongoing mechanism for tracking caseloads 

and generating indicators of resource 

needs. The State has introduced the tool 

to county administrators through a series of 

training webinars and continues to plan and 

implement additional training and one-on-one 

technical assistance. 

Given the importance of a stable workforce to 

meaningful workload measures, Minnesota’s 

workload study also addressed retention 

and the role of supervisors in supporting 

and retaining staff. Nearly 900 caseworkers, 

case aides, and supervisors completed staff 

surveys indicating reactions to statements 

about various topics associated with retention 

(e.g., agency policy, training, supervision). The 

survey findings are being used in planning the 

State’s new Supervision Initiative. 

Minnesota experienced high response rates 

in each of the workload study components. 

The random moment survey yielded a 99 

percent response rate, and more than 84 

percent of caseworkers completed the staff 

survey. Administrators attribute this success in 

large part to the upfront activities conducted 

to ensure buy-in at the county level (C. 

Borsheim, personal communication, Jan. 

13, 2010). These activities included inviting 

county directors to be part of the workload 

study advisory group, assigning “champions” 

9


in specific sites to oversee data collection, 

and clearly communicating the objectives and 

intended uses of the study. For examples of 

MDHS communication soliciting participation 

among county staff, see Minnesota Child 

Welfare Workload Study Memos (Minnesota 

Department of Human Services, 2009). 

Results: Minnesota recognized that while it 

was introducing a number of new practice 

reforms, training initiatives, and quality 

assurance improvements, these efforts 

would have little effect with an inadequate 

workforce. While it is too early to assess 

their effects, recent workload management 

efforts are important steps to stabilizing the 

workforce. The workload study has helped 

MDHS gain a better understanding of how 

to measure staffing levels needed to provide 

quality services, which in turn provides a 

foundation for resource management and 

financing decisions. The recently introduced 

analytic tool has been well received by county 

administrators who described it as “awesome” 

and found it useful in considering staff 

workloads. 

For more information, contact Christeen 

Borsheim, MDHS, 651.431.3857, christeen. 

borsheim@state.mn.us 

Larimer County, CO: Workload 

reports and Informed 

Decision-Making 

In Larimer County, CO, workload reports 

serve as a tool to make informed decisions 

on work distribution and staff allocation. 

These reports have helped administrators and 

supervisors recognize where staffing needs are 

greatest and respond accordingly. Workload 

efforts also have supported other reform 

initiatives related to differential response, 

family team meetings, service delivery, and 

deinstitutionalization. 

Using data from an internal time study 

coupled with other State and county workload 

studies, Larimer County developed time 

standards for assessments and ongoing 

services. These standards incorporated time 

for family meetings and travel and also reflect 

time adjustments for cases with multiple 

children and placement changes (Drendel & 

Suniga, 2008). The standards are integrated 

into the statewide information system, and 

weekly reports present workloads for every 

worker. 

Larimer County administrators and supervisors 

use these workload reports to assess and 

redistribute ongoing work. In some instances, 

managers have moved staff from one unit with 

a lower workload to another with a higher 

workload. Based on workload reports, changes 

also have been made to the composition 

of paired teams implementing differential 

response (adding one intake worker and 

reducing one ongoing worker for each team). 

Presented with data from workload reports 

that highlighted the need for more upfront 

support, supervisors and staff readily accepted 

reallocation changes. 

Results: Larimer County’s workload reports 

have resulted in more equitable distribution 

of casework. They also have provided 

supervisors and program managers with 

tools for enhanced staffing and program 

decisions, supporting the implementation of 

differential response and deinstitutionalization. 

In addition, workload efforts have contributed 

to positive safety outcomes for children. For 

example, according to Jim Drendel, manager 

of the Larimer County Children, Youth & 

Family Division, maltreatment recurrence has 



10


dropped from over 10 percent in 2007 to 

below 4 percent in 2009 (J. Drendel, personal 

communication, Feb. 8, 2010). 

For more information, contact Jim Drendel, 

Larimer County Department of Human 

Services, Children, Youth & Family Division, 

970.498.6990, jdrendel@larimer.org 

Indiana: staff expansion, 

enrichment, and Practice reform 

With Indiana caseloads at times exceeding 50 

children per worker, a statewide stakeholder 

group—the Indiana Commission on Abused 

and Neglected Children and Their Families— 

issued recommendations to the General 

Assembly in 2004 to reduce caseloads to 

CWLA standards (Folaran, 2004). The election 

of a new governor that year provided the 

catalyst for commitments to reform and 

support the child protection system. The 

State passed the best practice standards, 

which included, among other systemic 

improvements, caseload standards. 

In the following years, Indiana completed 

a large hiring wave, adding 800 family case 

manager positions to nearly double its 

frontline staff. The State hired an additional 

150 supervisors and reorganized the statewide 

child protection administration through 

regionalization. The Indiana Statewide 

Assessment reported that the additional staff 

lowered caseloads for many of the State’s 

family case managers (Children’s Bureau, 

2008b). 

In addition, the Indiana Department of Child 

Services (DCS), established as a separate 

entity in 2005, redesigned its infrastructure, 

policies, and practices to support practice 

reform. The State’s practice reform centers 

on a family engagement-focused practice 




model emphasizing five core skills— 

teaming, engaging, assessing, planning, 

and intervening (TEAPI). Administrators 

expect that this reform will “have long-term 

positive effects for children and families 

leading to shorter lengths of stay [in the child 

welfare system] and faster reunification or 

permanence, which will ultimately reduce 

caseloads” (DCS, 2009a). 

Reinforcing the practice model and 

caseload reduction efforts, DCS launched 

multiple initiatives focused on training, staff 

enrichment, and retention: 

• Enhanced pre-service training, which offers 

less classroom work and more on-the-job 

training and “transfer of learning” 

• Field mentor program matching each 

trainee with an experienced family case 

manager who provides one-on-one 

assistance and structured feedback 

• Supervisor initiative to improve supervisoremployee 

relationships with an emphasis 

on building communication and feedback 

skills 

• Comprehensive exit interview tool that 

captures reasons for turnover and informs 

hiring and retention practices 

Indiana also developed caseload management 

software to allow managers to assign 

assessments and ongoing cases according 

to best practice standards. In the coming 

years, the State plans to establish a caseload 

weighting system to more accurately reflect 

workloads and allow managers to distribute 

work and set expectations more effectively 

(DCS, 2009b). 

Results: As of June 2009, 16 of 18 Indiana 

regions (89 percent) met the caseload 

11


standards of no more than 12 active cases 

related to initial assessments/investigations 

and 17 ongoing cases. Turnover of family 

case managers decreased to 16 percent 

(DCS, 2009a). The State also observed steady 

improvements in monthly caseworker visits 

and improved permanency outcomes on CFSR 

composite measures. 

For more information, contact James Payne, 

Indiana DCS, 317.234.1391, james.payne@ 

dcs.in.gov 

Delaware: Designated funding, 

Overhire Pool, and staff retention 

Challenged by high staff turnover rates and 

concerns over well-publicized child fatalities, 

Delaware adopted an aggressive approach 

to managing caseloads that encompasses 

legislative support to meet caseload 

standards, hiring strategies, and initiatives to 

more effectively prepare and retain workers. 

Supported by legislation enacted in 1998 

and 2004 and amended in 2007, Delaware 

set caseload standards (currently 11 cases for 

investigation workers and 18 for treatment 

workers) as well as supervisor standards (five 

family services workers per supervisor). 

The legislation further tied allocation and 

funding of new positions to these caseload 

standards. Each year, based on projections of 

child abuse and neglect cases, the General 

Assembly is authorized to fund adequate 

staff so that caseloads do not exceed the 

established standards. 

In a related innovative hiring strategy, the 

Division of Family Services (DFS) established 

an “overhire pool” to fill vacancies quickly and 

stabilize caseloads. For up to 15 positions, 

the agency assigns two people to one 

budget position slot. Overhires are available 

immediately to step into a position when a 

worker resigns. They also carry cases while 

newly hired workers focus on training, fill in 

temporarily during a maternity or medical 

leave, and receive assignments to units 

experiencing high fluctuations in cases. 

In addition, Delaware also implemented 

several other recruitment, retention, and 

training efforts: 

• Establishing a new career ladder with 

additional job categories for family 

service workers that enabled promotional 

opportunities 

Increasing salaries for workers with more 

than 1 year of experience 



• 

• Introducing a rapid replacement process for 

new workers, which draws on continuous 

interviewing and a hiring waiting list 

• Expanding pre-service training to 125 

hours and implementing formal mentoring 

and shadowing programs for new workers 

before they receive cases 

• Providing enhanced supervisor training, 

setting competency-based performance 

expectations, and engaging supervisors in 

turnover prevention 

These efforts were intended to keep staff 

levels stable and thereby better control 

caseloads. 

DFS administrators attribute the involvement 

of community partners to their success in 

caseload management and reduced turnover 

(S. Roberts, personal communication, Feb. 5, 

2010). In particular, the multidisciplinary Child 

Protection Accountability Commission has 

been instrumental in advocating for needed 

change. 

12


Results: Overhire and rapid replacement 

processes reduce the impact of turnover 

by allowing a trained person to step into a 

vacancy as soon as it is announced and by 

reducing the need to redistribute caseloads 

or interrupt service delivery (DFS, 1999). 

Following implementation of the above 

workforce initiatives, staff turnover dropped 

substantially from approximately 48 percent in 

1998 to 8 percent in 2009 (DFS, 2010). 

Delaware child welfare caseloads are 

monitored monthly against standards. In 

2009, based on fully functional workers, 

statewide investigation caseloads averaged 

approximately 13 (slightly above standard), 

while statewide treatment caseloads fell 

below the caseload standard of 18 (DFS, 

2010). Based on progress evident in its CFSR, 

Delaware’s initiatives earned it recognition as a 

Children’s Bureau Promising Approach in Child 

Welfare. 

For more information, contact Shirley Roberts, 

Delaware DFS, 302.633.2601, Shirley. 

Roberts@state.de.us 

Arizona: staffing, staff 

Development, and Prevention 

Between 2000 and 2010, Arizona’s 

Department of Economic Security (DES) 

implemented several initiatives related 

to workload management. Many of these 

initiatives were sparked by then-Governor 

Janet Napolitano’s Action Plan for Reform 

of Arizona’s Child Protection System and 

supported by legislation passed during a 

2003 Arizona Legislature Special Session 

(Napolitano, 2003). 

As called for under the new legislation (HB 

2024), Arizona established State-specific 

caseload standards. To inform these 




standards, a workgroup assessed the time 

needed to perform casework activities in 

Arizona in accordance with identified best 

practices (Costello, 2004). While the ideal best 

practice estimates were not fiscally viable, 

new standards were set in 2004, significantly 

below Arizona’s prior caseload levels. The new 

standards called for a maximum caseload of 

10 investigations, 19 in-home cases, and 16 

children in out-of-home care. 

To reduce caseloads and strengthen its 

workforce, Arizona implemented multiple 

strategies, which coincided with reforms 

outlined in the Division of Children, Youth and 

Family’s (DCYF) Strengthening Families—A 

Blueprint for Realigning Arizona’s Child 

Welfare System (DES, 2005). Multifaceted 

initiatives included: 

• Additional staff. More than 375 new 

caseworker positions were authorized 

between 2003–2008, resulting in an 

approximate 50 percent increase. 

• Recruitment and hiring strategies. 

While the State was actively recruiting 

new workers, it expanded employee 

benefits to include increased salaries and 

stipends for bilingual staff, workers with 

master’s degrees in social work, workers 

in rural areas, and frontline investigators. 

(Due to budget cuts, these stipends have 

since been discontinued.) In addition, the 

State introduced a competency-based 

recruitment model and began offering a 

realistic job preview to promote better “fit” 

for new hires. 

• training and staff development. The 

State’s Child Welfare Institute developed 

and trained new case managers on 

its CORE curriculum, which combined 

classroom instruction with use of prototype 

13


cases, simulations, and hands-on activities, 

followed by field training. In addition, 

a partnership with the Arizona State 

School of Social Work supports classes 

and supervised casework experiences for 

social work students and potential DCYF 

employees. 

• supervisor initiatives. Recognizing the 

link between supervision and retention, 

the State developed enhanced supervisor 

training and strengthened clinical 

supervision practices. 

• Prevention and early intervention. Arizona 

introduced a major Family to Family 

initiative, focused on team decision-making, 

recruiting resource families, and building 

community partnerships. This strategy 

is intended to safely reduce the number 

of children in out-of-home care, thereby 

reducing caseloads. Arizona also expanded 

its Healthy Families program and offered 

an array of contracted in-home services to 

link at-risk children and families to needed 

services. 

The sustainability of Arizona’s workload 

management efforts has been challenged 

by the current economic environment. DCYF 

budget cuts have led to the suspension of 

some of the above programs, layoffs among 

150 frontline workers in 2009, a hiring freeze, 

and severe reductions in prevention and family 

support services. At the same time, economic 

factors create additional stress on families and 

increase factors that place children at risk of 

maltreatment (DES, 2010). With the decrease 

in funded positions, the State is no longer 

staffed to meet casework standards. 

Results: Arizona’s initiatives have strengthened 

its capacity to attract, prepare, and support its 

frontline staff. While the impact on outcomes 

is not clear, improvements have been reported 

in the number of children in foster care and 

their parents receiving required contact with 

case managers (Children’s Bureau, 2008a). 

Additionally, the expansion in prevention 

and in-home services appears to have 

had a positive effect on reducing repeat 

maltreatment reports (DCYF staff, personal 

communication, Feb. 12, 2009). 

Initially, as staff numbers increased, Arizona 

experienced progress in reducing caseloads. 

However, budget cuts and unfunded positions, 

along with State increases in maltreatment 

reports, currently contribute to higher 

caseload levels. During the period July– 

December 2008, CPS specialists were carrying 

caseloads that were on average 19 percent 

above the caseload standard (DES, 2009). 

For more information, contact Jakki Hillis, 

DES, DCYF, 602.542.3598, JHillis@azdes.gov 

related resources and 

services of the Children’s 

bureau 

Child Welfare Workload 

Compendium 

This database on Child Welfare Information 

Gateway provides child welfare administrators 

and policymakers with information and 

tools for improving workload management, 

including studies, standards, legislation, and 

policies. It can be searched by State, category, 

date, and keyword. 



14


National Child Welfare 

Workforce Institute 

Works to build the capacity of the child 

welfare workforce by disseminating 

information on effective and promising 

workforce practices, facilitating leadership 

training, coordinating peer networks, and 

advancing knowledge. It partners with and 

coordinates evaluation activities of the Child 

Welfare Comprehensive Workforce Grants 

and supports the Child Welfare Workforce 

Connection, an online forum for discussion, 

collaboration, and exchange of ideas related 

to pressing workforce issues. 

National resource Center for 

Organizational Improvement 

Helps States assess workforce development 

issues such as recruitment, selection, training, 

retention, and supervision, and helps them 

make connections with appropriate resources. 

Child Welfare Information Gateway 

Presents research, tools, and other resources 

that describe a range of topics for enhancing 

the child welfare workforce, including 

organizational culture, management, 

supervision, recruitment and hiring, and 

retention. Tools for building a stable and 

competent workforce also are available. 

Child Welfare Comprehensive 

Workforce Projects (Children’s 

bureau Discretionary Grants) 

Summarizes project activities, findings, and 

products from 2003–2008 child welfare staff 

recruitment and retention grantees, and 

is found in Recruitment and Retention of 

a Qualified Workforce: The Foundation of 




Success. Information on current child welfare 

workforce projects is available at http://ncwwi. 

org/projects.htm 


Child Protective services 

Addresses workload issues and provides 

expert consultation, technical assistance, and 

training in all areas of child protective services, 

including intake, assessment, case planning, 

ongoing safety management, removal and 

reunification decision making, ongoing 

services, and case closure. 

National resource Center for Child 

Welfare Data and Technology 

Offers States a wide range of technical 

assistance and products to enhance data 

analysis capacities, including support for 

monitoring and managing workload data. 


Permanency and family Connections 

Provides States with training, technical 

assistance, and information services related 

to family-centered principles and practices. 

Products include Information Packet: 

Workforce Issues in Child Welfare. 

Other resources 

American Humane Association 

Offers consultation and services in workload 

measurement and analysis. Prior workload 

studies are accessible on its website. 

15


Child Welfare League of America 

Publishes best practice and caseload 

standards and advocates for policies and 

practices that strengthen the workforce. 

Cornerstones for Kids 

Manages the Human Services Workforce 

Initiative, supported by the Annie E. Casey 

Foundation, with the aim of increasing 

awareness of the child welfare workforce crisis 

and building solutions to address it. It also 

operates the Workforce Planning Portal, a 

hands-on tool for human services agencies. 

references 

Alliance for Children and Families, American 

Public Human Services Association, and 

Child Welfare League of America. (2001). 

The child welfare workforce challenge: 

Results from a preliminary study. Retrieved 

December 2, 2009, from www.alliance1. 

org/Research/Workforce%20survey%20 

results%20-%20final.PDF 

American Public Human Services Association. 

(2005). Report from the 2004 Child Welfare 

Workforce Survey: State agency findings. 

Retrieved December 2, 2009, from www. 

aphsa.org/Home/Doc/Workforce%20 

Report%202005.pdf 

Arizona Department of Economic Security, 

Division of Children, Youth and Families. 

(2005). Strengthening families: A blueprint 

for realigning Arizona’s child welfare system. 

Retrieved November 30, 2009, from https:// 

egov.azdes.gov/CMS400Min/InternetFiles/ 

Reports/pdf/strengthening_families.pdf 


Division of Children, Youth and Families. 

(2009). Child protective service bi-annual 

financial and program accountability report. 

Retrieved February 12, 2010, from www. 

azdes.gov/CMS400Min/InternetFiles/ 

Reports/pdf/financial_program_ 

accountability_report_cps_2009_1.pdf 




Division of Children, Youth and 

Families. (2010). Child welfare reporting 

requirements: Semi-annual report for the 

period April 1, 2009 through September 30, 

2009. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from 

www.azdes.gov/CMS400Min/InternetFiles/ 

Reports/pdf/child_welfare_apr_09_sept_09. 

pdf 

Bernotavicz, F. (2008). Screening and 

selection of child welfare staff. Retrieved 

February 17, 2010, from the Child Welfare 

Training Institute website: www.cwti.org/ 

RR/Screening%20and%20selection%20 

Final%206-08%201.pdf 

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (2008). 

Progress of New Jersey Department of 

Children and Families. Period V monitoring 

report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. 

Corzine. (July 1–December 31, 2008). 

Retrieved November 30, 2009, from 

www.childrensrights.org/wp-content/ 

uploads//2009/04/2009-04-27_nj_ 

monitoring_report_final_corrected.pdf 

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (2009). 

Progress of New Jersey Department of 

Children and Families. Period VI monitoring 

report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine. 

(January 1–June 30, 2009). Retrieved 

January 7, 2010, from www.cssp.org/ 

16


uploadFiles/FINAL%20Period%20VI%20 

Monitoring%20Report.pdf 

Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services. (n.d.). Strategies that 

address critical practice areas: Successes 

and challenges in implementation. 

PowerPoint presentation. Retrieved March 

16, 2010, from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ 

cb/cwmonitoring/strategies/sld001.htm 


and Human Services. (2006). Summary of 

the results of the 2001–2004 Child and 

Family Services Reviews. Retrieved March 

16, 2010, from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ 

cb/cwmonitoring/results/index.htm 


and Human Services. (2008a). Arizona Child 

and Family Services Review: Final report. 

Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http:// 

tinyurl.com/5b2syc 


and Human Services. (2008b). Indiana Child 

and Family Services Review: Final report. 

Retrieved March 16, 2010, from http:// 

tinyurl.com/ychhos8 

Children’s Defense Fund and Children’s Rights, 

Inc. (2006). Supporting and improving 

the child welfare workforce: A review of 

Program Improvement Plans (PIPs) and 

recommendations for strengthening the 

Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). 

Retrieved October 30, 2009, from www. 

childrensdefense.org/child-researchdata-publications/data/supporting-andimproving-the-child-welfare-workforce.pdf 




Costello, T. (2004). Final report of the 

Investigation Caseload Standard 

Workgroup. Retrieved October 30, 2009, 

from http://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/ 

ws/library/docs/gateway/Record?rpp=10&u 

pp=0&m=1&w=+NATIVE%28%27recno%3 

D49707%27%29&r=1 

Day, P., & Peterson, C. (2008). Caseload 

reduction efforts in selected States. 

Unpublished manuscript, Casey Family 

Programs and ICF International. 

Delaware Children’s Department. (2010). 

Caseworker turnover. Unpublished. 

Delaware Children’s Department. (1999). 

Enhancing workforce effectiveness through 

retention. Budget epilogue. Unpublished. 

Drendel, J., & Suniga, D. (2008, December). 

Larimer County Workload versus Caseload 

Project. Paper presented at the conference 

Time and Effort: Perspectives on Workload 

Roundtable. Santa Fe, NM. 

Edwards, M. T., & Reynolds, J. (2008). Work, 

case, time: Setting standards for workload 

management. Protecting Children, 23(3), 

74-88. 

Ellet, A. J., Ellet, C. D., & Rugutt, J. K. (2003). 

A study of personal and organizational 

factors contributing to employee retention 

and turnover in child welfare in Georgia: 

Final project report. Unpublished. Athens: 

University of Georgia. 

Farber, J., & Munson, S. (2007). Improving the 

child welfare workforce: Lessons learned 

from class action litigation. Retrieved 

October 30, 2009, from the National Center 

17


for Youth Law website: www.youthlaw.org/ 

publications/improving_the_child_welfare_ 

workforce_lessons_learned_from_class_ 

action_litigation 

Flower, C., McDonald, J., & Sumski, M. (2005). 

Review of turnover in Milwaukee County: 

Private agency child welfare ongoing case 

management staff. Retrieved November 

27, 2009, from the Wisconsin Department 

of Children and Families website: www. 

legis.state.wi.us/lc/committees/study/2008/ 

SFAM08/files/turnoverstudy.pdf 

Folaron, G., (Ed.) (2004). Putting children 

first: Recommendations from the Indiana 

Commission on Abused and Neglected 

Children and Their Families. Retrieved 

November 27, 2009, from www.in.gov/ 

legislative/igareports/agency/reports/ 

ANCH01.pdf 

Gonzalez, R. P., Faller, K. C., Ortega, R. M., 

& Tropman, J. (2009). Exit interviews with 

departed child welfare workers: Preliminary 

findings. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 

(3)1, 40-63. 

Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. (2009a). 

Statewide Workload Analytic Tool: 

User’s reference guide. Prepared for 

Minnesota Department of Human Services. 

Unpublished. 

Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. (2009b). Child 

Welfare Workload Study and Analysis. Final 

report. Prepared for Minnesota Department 

of Human Services. Unpublished. 

Indiana Department of Child Services. 

(2009a). Quarterly report to the Indiana 

State Budget Committee and the Indiana 



Legislative Council. For the Quarter Ended 

6/30/09. Retrieved November 27, 2009, 

from www.in.gov/legislative/igareports/ 

agency/reports/DCS18.pdf 

Indiana Department of Child Services. (2009b). 

State Five Year Comprehensive Child and 

Family Service Plan for the State of Indiana 

for the time period beginning October 1, 

2009 and ending September 30, 2014. 

Submitted to the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Administration 

for Children and Families, Children’s 

Bureau. 

Juby, C., & Scannapieco, M. (2007). 

Characteristics of workload management 

in public child welfare agencies. 

Administration in Social Work, 31(3), 

95-109. 

Levy credits foster care avoidance for 

generating $5 million in 2009 savings: 

Excellent child protective services 

management averts foster care reduces 

caseload by 26 percent. (2009, September 

25). Hamptons.com For the Record. 

Retrieved September 26, 2009, from 

www.hamptons.com/News/For-The- 

Record/9014/Levy-Credits-Foster-Care- 

Avoidance-For-Generating.html 

Minnesota Department of Human Services. 

(2009). Minnesota child welfare workload 

study memos. Retrieved March 16, 2010, 

from http://basis.caliber.com/cwig/ws/ 

library/docs/gateway/Blob/66865.pdf?w=+ 

NATIVE%28%27recno%3D66865%27%29& 

upp=0&rpp=10&r=1&m=1 

Napolitano, J. (2003). Action plan for reform of 

Arizona’s child protection system. Retrieved 

18


February 12, 2010, from the Arizona 

Governor website: http://azgovernor.gov/ 

cps/documents/action_plan3.pdf 

National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 

(2006). The relationship between staff 

turnover, child welfare system functioning 

and recent child abuse. Retrieved October 

30, 2009, from the Cornerstones for Kids 

website: www.cornerstones4kids.org/ 

images/nccd_relationships_306.pdf 

New Jersey Department of Children and 

Families. (2007). Implementing the case 

practice model. Retrieved February 6, 

2010, from www.state.nj.us/dcf/about/case/ 

DCFImplementingCPM9.28.07.pdf 

New Jersey Department of Children 

and Families. (2009). Annual agency 

performance report. Fiscal year 

2009. Retrieved January 6, 2010, 

from www.state.nj.us/dcf/about/ 

DCFAnnualAgencyPerformanceReport_ 

12.15.09.pdf 

Payne, J. (2008, December). Getting from A 

to Z: Steps for improving child and family 

outcomes through caseload/workload 

reduction. Presentation at the Workload 

Round Table, Santa Fe, NM. 

Social Work Education Consortium. (2002). 

Workforce retention study. November 

25, 2009, from the New York State 

Office of Children and Family Services 

website: www.ocfs.state.ny.us/ohrd/swec/ 

pubs/Executive% 20Summary%20-%20 

Quantitative%20Final.pdf 

Strolin, J., McCarthy, M., & Caringi, J. 

(2007). Causes and effects of child welfare 




workforce turnover: Current state of 

knowledge and future directions. Journal of 

Public Child Welfare, 1(2), 29-52. 

Tooman, G., & Fluke, J. D. (2002). Beyond 

caseload: What workload studies can tell 

us about enduring issues in the workplace. 

Protecting Children, 17(3), 48-59. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Child 

welfare: HHS could play a greater role in 

helping child welfare agencies recruit and 

retain staff. Retrieved October 30, 2009, 

from www.gao.gov/new.items/d03357.pdf 

Wagner, D., Johnson, K., & Healy, T. 

(2008). Agency workforce estimation: 

A step toward more effective workload 

management. Protecting Children, 

23(3), 6-19. Retrieved March 16, 2010, 

from www.nccd-crc.org/crc/crc/pubs/ 

americanHumane_agency_workforce_ 

estimation.pdf 

Zlotnik, J. L., DePanfilis, D., Daining, C., & 

Lane, M. M. (2005). Factors influencing 

retention of child welfare staff: A systematic 

review of research. Retrieved October 

30, 2009, from the Institute for the 

Advancement of Social Work Research 

website: www.charityadvantage.com/iaswr/ 

FinalReportCWWI.pdf 

19

Caseload and Workload Management - Child Welfare Information ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?